0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

0 просмотров7 страницhighlighted information about how importang saturation exponent really is

Feb 28, 2020

© © All Rights Reserved

highlighted information about how importang saturation exponent really is

© All Rights Reserved

0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

0 просмотров7 страницhighlighted information about how importang saturation exponent really is

© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Paul F Worthington, SPE, Gaffney, Cline & Associates

methodology. In many cases of routine petrophysical

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and interpretation, it is not.

Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September–3 October 2001.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of

information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as

The saturation exponent n is an important interpretative

presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to parameter in petrophysics, because it defines a quantitative

correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any

position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at relationship between the electrical properties of a reservoir

SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of

Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper

rock and its water saturation Sw, i.e. the faction of pore space

for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is that is filled with water as opposed to hydrocarbons.1 This

prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300

words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous relationship is often expressed in terms of resistivity index Ir,

acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.

Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

the ratio of the resistivity of a partially water-saturated

reservoir rock Rt to the resistivity R0 that the rock would

possess at conditions of full water saturation with the same

electrolyte, as follows:

Abstract

Algorithms that are commonly used for the evaluation of Ir = Rt /R0 = C0 /Ct = Sw–n (1)

water saturation can require different input values of

saturation exponent for meaningful application to the same

where the conductivities Ct and C0 are the reciprocals of

reservoir rock. Further, the differences in the required

resistivities Rt and R0, respectively. Equation (1) can be

saturation exponent can vary according to the reservoir

rewritten:

properties themselves. By taking account of these different

input requirements, it is shown that the discrepancies between

Ct = C0 Swn (2)

predicted water saturations obtained using dissimilar

petrophysical algorithms can be confined to a restricted range.

For a reservoir rock that is fully water-saturated, a formation

The procedure is synthesized for easy operational application

resistivity factor, or simply formation factor, F can be defined

of an ordered, interactive method that allows a fit-for-purpose

as follows:

saturation exponent to be identified. Through this process, the

sensitivity associated with the choice of an interpretative

F = R0 /Rw = Cw /C0 (3)

model for the evaluation of water saturation is demonstrably

contained. The application of the method therefore increases

where Rw is the resistivity of the saturating aqueous electrolyte

confidence in petrophysical interpretation by limiting

and Cw is its conductivity. This definition allows equation (2)

uncertainty.

to be rewritten in the form:

Introduction

Ct = (Cw /F) Swn (4)

A reliable knowledge of saturation exponent is a prerequisite

for the meaningful petrophysical evaluation of water

For the limiting case of fully water-saturated conditions,

saturation. Up to now, saturation exponent has been seen

equation (4) reduces to the following alternative form of

solely as a property of a reservoir rock that is obtained through

equation (3):

special core analysis. However, there are growing indications

that saturation exponent is also dependent upon the nature of

C0 = (Cw /F) (5)

the petrophysical algorithm that is to be used subsequently for

the evaluation of water saturation from well logs. It is

Equations (1) - (5) relate to reservoir rocks that are

therefore imperative that a chosen saturation exponent be fit

electrochemically clean, i.e. conduction takes place solely

for purpose, not only in terms of reservoir properties but also

through the free ions within the formation water. These

from the standpoint of petrophysical interpretative

conditions have been loosely associated with the absence of

2 PAUL F WORTHINGTON SPE 71723

clays and clay minerals, and this is a fair assumption where and basing the selection of algorithms on company culture,

the formation water has a high salinity. They can be called when a consideration of reservoir physics might have

“Archie” conditions after the author of that seminal paper.1 indicated otherwise. Yet, there is evidence to suggest that

Otherwise a reservoir rock shows conduction phenomena that each petrophysical model underpinning an available

do not satisfy equations (1) - (5), because of the electrical interpretative algorithm for Sw does require a saturation

effects of shaliness or of a low-salinity formation water, or exponent that is appropriate to the model itself. In other

both. In these cases, equations (1) - (5) have been extended to words, it is important to identify how the saturation exponent

include at least one additional conductivity term that is should be determined for a given interpretative model and to

associated with shale and/or low-salinity effects. With one do so in a way that is compatible with the nature and

additional conductivity term X, equation (4) becomes: requirements of the model. This suggests that a saturation

exponent is not just specific to a particular reservoir rock but

Ct = (Cw /F*) Swn* + X Swq* (6) is also specific to the petrophysical model and thence to the

interpretative algorithm that is to be used.

where q* is a saturation exponent within the additional The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the use of

conductivity term. For the limiting case of fully water- model-specific saturation exponents does lead to evaluations

saturated conditions, equation (6) reduces to: of water saturation that can be reconciled when different

interpretative algorithms are used. To do this, it is necessary

C0 = (Cw /F*) + X (7) to have some criterion for deciding whether a reservoir rock

should be treated as an Archie reservoir or a non-Archie

The quantity X can be written for mathematical convenience reservoir. This criterion is established through the continuum

as: concept of the electrical character of reservoir rocks.4

The continuum concept is founded on the premise that

Here x is a scaled parameter that quantifies the conduction intergranular reservoir rocks show a continuum of electrical

associated with shale and/or low-salinity effects. Equations behavior over a wide range of formation water conductivity

(6) – (8) relate to reservoir rocks wherein shale and/or a low- and electrical manifestation of shaliness. This phenomenon is

salinity electrolyte give rise to a significant extra conductivity most readily (but not uniquely) described for the case of fully

term X. These conditions can be termed “non-Archie” water-saturated siliciclastic sediments, on which uncertainties

conditions. Equations (6) and (7) can be seen as general forms in the saturation exponent have no bearing. Conduction

of equations (4) and (5), respectively. In equations (6) – (8) through a fully water-saturated reservoir rock is represented

the parameters F, n and q have been written F*, n* and q*, by the parallel resistor model described by equations (7) and

respectively, to indicate that they have to be quantified by (8), but rewritten in the following form by substituting for C0

taking account of non-Archie effects. This convention is using equation (5):

adopted throughout.

Equations (2) and (6) are used to evaluate water saturation F /F* = Cw / (Cw + x) (9)

from electrical measurements of Archie and non-Archie

reservoir rocks, respectively. Equation (2) is standard for For Archie conditions, the ratio F/F* ≈ 1, and this requirement

partially water-saturated Archie reservoir rocks. In contrast, is attained where x is sufficiently small and Cw is sufficiently

over the years many authors have presented interpretative large. For non-Archie conditions, F/F* << 1, and this

algorithms to describe quantitatively the electrical situation can prevail where x is sufficiently large or Cw is

characteristics of partially water-saturated non-Archie sufficiently small. For practical purposes, Archie conditions

reservoir rocks.2 Some of these equations have taken the form are assumed where F/F* ≥ 0.9 and therefore equations (1) –

of equation (6): others have taken different forms. All contain (5) only apply where this inequality is satisfied. Where F/F*

Archie and non-Archie terms. In particular, each equation < 0.5, equations such as (6) – (8) have to be handled with

takes a position either on the value of exponents such as q* or caution and they can break down in extreme cases.5

on how such an exponent relates to n*. It has long been Equation (9) is depicted graphically in Fig 1, which also

appreciated that these multifarious equations lead to contains the demarcation lines at F/F* = 0.9 and F/F* = 0.5.

significantly different estimates of water saturation and thence For present purposes, I will refer Fig. 1 to a notional

hydrocarbon saturation.3 measurement temperature of 25°C. In this paper, I will

One of the reasons why these diverse estimates of water consider only those reservoir rocks that lie within the shaded

saturation have not been reconciled is that the saturation area of Fig. 1. This domain is bounded by the line F/F* = 1,

exponent n or n* has generally been regarded exclusively as a at the limit, and by the line F/F* = 0.5, for reasons already

property of the reservoir rock. The same saturation exponent stated. It is also bounded by the curve Cw = 3.3 S/m (the

has been applied regardless of the character of the equation electrolyte conductivity at 25°C that broadly corresponds to

into which it is to be inserted. The situation has been 20000 mg/liter NaCl, the minimum water salinity used by

exacerbated by the practices of using default values of n or n*

SPE 71723 DETERMINATION OF FIT-FOR-PURPOSE SATURATION EXPONENTS 3

Archie1), and by the curve Cw = 25.0 S/m (close to the Type 4. Again, the algorithm expresses total rock

maximum attainable electrolyte conductivity of an NaCl conductivity as the sum of three conductivity terms, but here

solution at 25°C). For any reservoir rock within this domain, water saturation appears in all three terms, so that:

the non-Archie formation factor F* becomes numerically

indistinguishable from the Archie formation factor F as x → 0 Ct = α Swn* + β Swp* + γ Swq* (13)

and thence equation (6) reduces to equation (4). Outside this

domain the situation is less clear, because lithologically-clean Examples of type-4 models are the Indonesia equation13 and

reservoirs that contain low-salinity waters can show pseudo- the method of Raiga-Clemenceau et al.14

shale effects, i.e. F/F* can be significantly less than unity even

where x is very small, as Fig. 1 indicates. Procedures for Determining Saturation Exponent

It is noteworthy that in the particular forms of those

Water-Saturation Algorithms algorithms with more than one exponent of Sw, all exponents

In the most common practice, where a saturation exponent is are expressed in terms of n or n*. Therefore the problem of

required as input, my earlier type classification of non-Archie determining saturation exponent remains one of evaluating n

algorithms still accommodates most of the models that have or n* for equations of all four types. The evaluation procedure

been proposed for the evaluation of water saturation from is based on curve-fitting Ir vs. Sw data from a single core plug.

electrical measurements.2 The type classification is as However, the function to be fitted should be governed by the

follows. interpretative model that is to be used subsequently to evaluate

Sw from resistivity logs. This model is described by an

Type 1. The algorithm expresses total rock conductivity as algorithm that will indicate whether the model uses n or n* as

the sum of Archie and non-Archie conductivity terms, but saturation exponent. The adoption of the algorithm leads to a

water saturation appears only in the Archie term and the saturation exponent that is suitable for use with the underlying

exponent q* = 0: interpretative model. Thus, the saturation exponent is

rendered fit for purpose. Values of n* are most reliable if they

Ct = α Swn* + γ (10) are established using control data, in the form of known values

of Cw, F* and x (the last two preferably from multiple-salinity

where α is a generalized coefficient of water saturation in the conductivity measurements). The approach is now described

Archie conductivity term and γ is a generalized form of the for each type-model in turn.

non-Archie conductivity term. Examples of type-1 models are

those of Hossin6 and Givens.7 Type 1. Here, and in virtually every other non-Archie case, α

= Cw/F*. The non-Archie term can be written in the form γ =

Type 2. Again, the algorithm expresses total rock x/F*. For a fully water-saturated reservoir rock, equation (10)

conductivity as the sum of Archie and non-Archie reduces to:

conductivity terms, but here water saturation appears in both

terms, so that: C0 = α + γ (14)

Ct = α Swn* + γ Swq* (11) Because Ir = C0/Ct, it follows from equations (10) and (14)

that:

where γ is now a generalized coefficient of water saturation in

the non-Archie conductivity term. Examples of type-2 models Ir = (α + γ)/(α Swn* + γ) (15)

are the modified Simandoux,8 Waxman-Smits9 and dual-

water10 methods. or:

Type 3. The algorithm expresses total rock conductivity as Ir = (A + 1)/(A Swn* + 1) (16)

the sum of three conductivities, an Archie term, a non-Archie

term and a coupling term that brings together both Archie and where A = Cw/x. Equation (16) therefore allows a

non-Archie conductivities. Water saturation does not appear determination of n* as the only unknown parameter by a

in the non-Archie term, so that: regression analysis of Ir vs. Sw data measured on a single core

plug. However, the regression is done in a way that is

Ct = α Swn* + β Swp* + γ (12) consistent with the interpretative model and it is computed in

bilinear as opposed to bilogarithmic space. Type-1 models are

where β is a generalized coefficient of water saturation in the the least flexible of the four types considered.

coupling term for Archie and non-Archie conductivity and p*

is the saturation exponent within the same term. Examples of Type 2. For a fully water-saturated reservoir rock, equation

type-3 models are those of Husten & Anton11 and Schwartz (11) reduces to equation (14), so that:

and Sen.12

4 PAUL F WORTHINGTON SPE 71723

Ir = (α + γ) / (α Swn* + γ Swq*) (17) Equations (20) and (23) happen to be identical for the

particular models chosen. Once again, equation (23) can be

or: solved for γ in order to determine a model-compatible value

of the non-Archie coefficient and thence of the coupling

Ir = (A + 1) / (A Swn* + Swq*) (18) coefficient. Combining equations (22) and (23) we have:

This approach is similar to that described for type-2 models by

Argaud et al., who set q* = n*.15 However, q* = n*-1 in most so that:

other type-2 models.8-10 Again, A = Cw/x and therefore n* can

be evaluated as the only unknown parameter by a regression Ir = 1 / Swn (25)

analysis of Ir vs. Sw data measured on a single core plug.

where n* has now been substituted by n, because the exponent

Type 3. Here the situation is different. The use of controlling is obtained by regression as though we were dealing with an

data from other core measurements is impeded by the coupling Archie situation. Note, however, that when the Indonesia

term and the many forms it can take. Therefore a particular equation is applied to field data through equation (22), values

form of type-3 equation has to be assumed in order to of α and γ are required. An analogous procedure can be

implement the approach. Taking the model of Husten & followed for the model of Raiga-Clemenceau et al.,14 which

Anton,11 we arrive at the following particular form of equation uses n*.

(12):

Synthesis. Table 1 lists the models that are considered here

Ct = α Swn* + 2 (αγ)0.5 Swn*-1 + γ (19) and indicates the exponents (n or n*) that are required to

characterize their interpretative algorithms. Type-1 models

or, in the case of fully water-saturated conditions: have not been included, because it became apparent at an early

stage that their mathematical form does not lend sufficient

C0 = α + 2 (αγ)0.5 + γ (20) flexibility to furnish satisfactory matches to Ir vs. Sw data

distributions when used in conjunction with controlling core

Equation (20) is incompatible with the linear form of C0 vs. Cw measurements. Better fits were obtained when the parameter

data at higher salinities and therefore those data cannot be A in equation (16) was unconstrained during the regression.

used to control the value of γ during regression. However, However, the determined values of this parameter then bore

since C0 and α are known, equation (20) can be solved as a little relation to reality. Further investigation of this problem

quadratic in γ0.5 in order to determine a model-compatible has been deferred, because type-1 algorithms are not widely

value of the non-Archie term and thence of the coupling used.

coefficient. When this has been done, regression of Ir vs. Sw

data can be effected using the following combination of Application of the Methods

equations (19) and (20): The procedures described above have been applied to

laboratory data in order to investigate the predictive

Ir = (α + 2(αγ)0.5 + γ)/(α Swn* + 2(αγ)0.5 Swn*-1 + γ) (21) performance of water-saturation algorithms when used with

fit-for-purpose saturation exponents. Two sample datasets

where α = Cw/F*. In this case, n* is the only unknown. An have been selected. Both of these lie within, and are

analogous procedure can be followed for the model of representative of, the admissible domain that is identified in

Schwartz and Sen.12 Fig. 1. Sample 1 behaves marginally as a shaly sand in that it

plots just below the line F/F* = 0.9 (Fig. 1). Sample 2 plots

Type 4. Again, a particular model has to be assumed in order so that F/F* << 1 (Fig. 1). On this basis we can expect fit-for-

to evaluate the coupling and the non-Archie terms for purpose saturation exponents to show a greater dispersion for

controlling the regression analysis. In this case I will begin Sample 2, because differences in non-Archie conductivity

with the Indonesia equation,13 which gives rise to the terms between interpretative models are more likely to be

following particular form of equation (13): significant where non-Archie effects are greater.

Ct = α Swn* + 2 (αγ)0.5 Swn* + γ Swn* (22)

petrophysical characteristics indicated in Table 2, where the

electrical properties are derived from multiple-salinity

or, in the case of fully water-saturated conditions:

conductivity measurements. The distribution of Ir vs. Sw data

for Cw = 9.98 S/m is shown in Fig. 2 with a conventional

C0 = α + 2 (αγ)0.5 + γ (23)

bilogarithmic display. The models of Table 1 have been fitted

to these data using the procedures described above. In

SPE 71723 DETERMINATION OF FIT-FOR-PURPOSE SATURATION EXPONENTS 5

particular, Fig. 2 also shows a type-3 data fit based on the the predesignated water-saturation algorithm. In order for the

model of Husten and Anton.11 Note that although the result of method to be most effective, core data should also be used to

the data fitting is shown in bilogarithmic space, the regression calibrate the estimates of the non-Archie conductivity term

itself was effected in bilinear space. The resulting saturation that are made using well logs, because these estimates can be

exponents are listed in Table 3, which also compares the tenuous.

values of Sw predicted by the various models using the fit-for-

purpose saturation exponents. For the models of Waxman & Conclusions

Smits,9 Husten & Anton,11 Schwartz & Sen12 and Raiga- By drawing upon the recognized continuum of electrical

Clemenceau et al.,14 the predicted Sw was calculated by properties of fully water-saturated sands, it has been possible

successive approximation. Although the saturation exponents to identify a domain within which the non-Archie formation

do show significant variations, the predicted values of Sw factor F* becomes numerically equivalent to the Archie

based on these exponents all lie within a range defined by two formation factor F as the electrical manifestation of shaliness

saturation units, except for some departures where Ct = 0.02 approaches zero. The present study has been located within

S/m, at which point we have moved well beyond the that domain.

calibration range for this sample and also have strayed beyond Building on the type-classification of interpretative

the lower limit of Sw = 0.15 used by Archie.1 These algorithms for the evaluation of water saturation, a structured

predictions, too, draw upon the control provided by core data. approach has been outlined for the determination of a

It is unlikely that this precision would be achievable saturation exponent that is appropriate to an interpretative

downhole. However, our purpose here is to contain algorithm used to evaluate Sw from well logs. In this way, the

uncertainties that can be attributed to the determination of derivation of the saturation exponent and the subsequent field

saturation exponent itself, and this outcome has certainly been evaluation of Sw draw upon the same model throughout. Of

achieved in Table 3. the models considered, the Indonesia equation13 and the

algorithm of Argaud et al.15 require values of n: all the other

Sample 2. The second dataset relates to a tighter sample models require values of n*. Yet, notwithstanding these

(Table 2). The distribution of Ir vs. Sw data for Cw = 9.98 S/m different requirements, the approach adopted here is generic,

is shown in Fig. 3, once more in bilogarithmic space. Here, in that it can be applied to water saturation algorithms of all

the determined values of saturation exponent show a greater types. Note, however, that type-1 models have been dropped

spread. Yet, the values of Sw predicted by the different models from the present approach, where they contain only one term

again lie within a restricted range, with minor departures that can vary and this has been insufficient to fit meaningfully

where Ct = 0.02 S/m, at which point we have strayed beyond the observed data when physical controls are applied in the

the calibration range for this sample (Table 4). form of core calibration.

The application of these diverse equations, each used in

Discussion. The procedure that has been exemplified above is conjunction with its model-specific saturation exponent, has

generic. Its application allows model-specific values of furnished predictions of water saturation that are confined to a

saturation exponent to be evaluated. These values take the range of about two saturation units. Moreover, the same

form of n or n* as appropriate. outcome has been forthcoming over a range of formation

In the particular case of n*, the method described here conductivity Ct. Thus the adoption of a fit-for-purpose

offers a single-salinity desaturation approach to the saturation exponent can measurably contain the sensitivity

determination of a fit-for-purpose saturation exponent, given associated with the choice of an interpretative model for the

that a relationship between n* and p* and/or q* can be determination of water saturation. Thus, provided that n or n*

presupposed and that F* is known from supporting is determined and applied as described above, the choice of

conductivity measurements under conditions of full water interpretative algorithm for the evaluation of water saturation

saturation. The method complements the dual-salinity becomes much less critical. The application of the method

desaturation approach to the determination of model-specific therefore contributes to a managed uncertainty in

saturation exponent,16 which does not presuppose a petrophysical evaluation. In this respect it is beneficial both

relationship between n* and other exponents and does not technically and commercially.

require a knowledge of F*. Note that these comments relate implicitly to the domain

The examples considered show a linear, or quasi-linear, of the continuum chart that we have considered here (Fig. 1).

data trend of Ir vs. Sw in bilogarithmic space. The approach Further benefits are likely to accrue in very shaly reservoirs

would need to be modified in order to accommodate those and those containing relatively fresh formation waters. Future

non-linear data trends that are encountered in the presence of work will include the extension of the method to cases such as

microporosity.17 Again, no account has been taken of these and an appraisal of how the present methodology is

formation anisotropy, which is known to increase under impacted when type algorithms are used beyond their

conditions of partial water saturation.18 conventional range of application.

In a field study, several samples from the same petrofacies

unit would be considered so that a representative saturation

exponent could be identified for application to that unit using

6 PAUL F WORTHINGTON SPE 71723

1. Archie, G.E.: “The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid and Experimental Bases for the Dual-water Model for

in Determining Some Reservoir Characteristics,” Trans. Interpretation of Shaly Sands,” Society of Petroleum

AIME 146 (1942) 54-62. Engineers Journal 24 (1974) 153-167.

2. Worthington, P.F.: “The Evolution of Shaly-Sand 11. Husten, P. & Anton, H.: “The Porosity Surface

Concepts in Reservoir Evaluation,” The Log Analyst Concept,” Oil Gas 7(1) (1981) 40-42.

26(1), (1985) 23-40. 12. Schwartz, L.M. & Sen, P.N.: “Electrolytic Conduction

3. Fertl, W.H. & Hammack, G.W.: “A Comparative Look in Partially Saturated Shaly Formations,” SPE Paper

at Water Saturation Computations in Shaly Pay Sands,” 18131 (1988).

Trans. SPWLA 12th Annual Logging Symposium (1971) 13. Poupon, A. & Leveaux, J.: “Evaluation of Water

R1-17. Saturation in Shaly Formations,” Trans. SPWLA 12th

4. Worthington, P.F.: “A Continuum Approach to the Annual Logging Symposium (1971) O1-2. (Full text in:

Petrophysical Classification and Evaluation of Reservoir SPWLA, Houston, Texas, Shaly Sand Reprint Volume

Rocks,” Petroleum Geoscience 1 (1995) 97-108. (1982) IV 81-95.)

5. Worthington, P.F.: “Recognition and Evaluation of 14. Raiga-Clemenceau, J., Fraisse, C. & Grossjean, Y.: “The

Low-Resistivity Pay,” Petroleum Geoscience 6 (2000) Dual Porosity Model : A Newly Developed

77-92. Interpretation Method for Shaly Sands,” Trans. SPWLA

6. Hossin, A.: “Calcul des Saturations en Eau par la 25th Annual Logging Symposium (1976) E1-16.

Méthode du Ciment Argileux (Formule d’Archie 15. Argaud, M., Giouse, H., Straley, C., Tomanic, J. &

Generalisée),” Bulletin de l’Association Française des Winkler, K.: “Salinity and Saturation Effects on Shaly

Techniciens du Pétrole 140 (1960). Sandstone Conductivity,” SPE Paper 19577 (1989).

7. Givens, W.W.: “A Conductive Rock Matrix Model 16. Worthington, P.F.: “Characterization of Water

(CRMM) for the Analysis of Low-Contrast Resistivity Saturation Algorithms Through Dual-Salinity

Formations,” The Log Analyst 28(2) (1987) 138-151. Desaturations,” The Log Analyst 37(1) (1996) 31-46.

8. Bardon, C. & Pied, B. : “Formation Water Saturation in 17. Worthington, P.F. & Pallatt, N.: “Effect of Variable

Shaly Sands,” Trans. SPWLA 10th Annual Logging Saturation Exponent upon the Evaluation of

Symposium (1969) Z1-19. Hydrocarbon Saturation,” SPE Formation Evaluation 7

9. Waxman, M.H. & Smits, L.J.M.: “Electrical (1992) 331-336.

Conductivities in Oil-bearing Shaly Sands,” Society of 18. Klein, J.D.: “Saturation Effects on Electrical

Petroleum Engineers Journal 8 (1968) 107-122. Anisotropy,” The Log Analyst 37(1) (1996) 47-49.

exponent No. Factor Conductivity

(S/m)

2 Waxman & Smits n*

2 Argaud et al. n 1 0.189 27.8 1.34

3 Husten & Anton n* 2 0.107 87.0 2.99

3 Schwartz & Sen n*

4 Indonesia n

4 Raiga-Clemenceau et al. n*

Model name Fit-For- Predicted Sw for input

Purpose values of Ct (S/m) =

Purpose values of Ct (S/m) =

Saturation 0.1 0.05 0.02

Saturation 0.1 0.05 0.02

Exponent

Exponent

Waxman & Smits 2.25 0.819 0.574 0.350

Waxman & Smits 1.83 0.430 0.274 0.144

Argaud et al. 1.93 0.813 0.568 0.353

Argaud et al. 1.63 0.422 0.276 0.157

Husten & Anton 2.31 0.822 0.576 0.344

Husten & Anton 1.86 0.425 0.268 0.135

Schwartz & Sen 2.24 0.827 0.583 0.331

Schwartz & Sen 1.77 0.432 0.270 0.111

Indonesia 1.93 0.813 0.567 0.353

Indonesia 1.63 0.418 0.273 0.156

Raiga-Clemenceau 2.08 0.815 0.569 0.352

Raiga-Clemenceau 1.72 0.420 0.273 0.153

et al.

et al.

SPE 71723 DETERMINATION OF FIT-FOR-PURPOSE SATURATION EXPONENTS 7

1

ARCHIE REGION Sample 1

0.9

Sample 2

25.0 S/m

NON - ARCHIE

0.5 REGION

10.0 S/m

3.3 S/m

1.0 S/m

Cw=0.1 S/m

0.1

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

(S/m)

In dex In de x

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

1 1

0.1 0.2 0 .4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 .1 0.2 0.4 0. 6 0.8 1.0

W at er Sa tu ratio n W ater S atur atio n

Fi g.2 R e si sti vi ty ind e x vs . wa ter s a tur ati on Fi g.3 R e s is tiv ity in de x vs . wa ter s a turati on

for S a m ple 1 w ith Ty pe -3 da ta fit for S a m ple 2 with Ty pe -3 da ta fit

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.